Is that so?
Or would you just say this to never return or put some kind of thought behind any of this?

Then would you care to join me in a discussion about what this means to you:
'A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions'

I shall start;
It may be that this man does not boast or flaunt with his words when he speaks, but in his actions, he does effects others. Just as the superior man is master of himself and his actions.

Well, yes. That is true.
But for the superior man, it is not that his actions are more important than what he says, if they were to be lessened by their value. It is that he refrains from such promises, and follows through with actions instead.

We make a return to language. Language circumscribes beauty, confines it, limns, delineates, colours and contains. Yet what is language but a tool, a tool we use to dig up the beauty that we take as our only and absolute real?

At 8/27/11 01:23 PM, Confucianism wrote:
Confucianism does not believe in the hereafter, paradise or hell, nor do the followers believe in resurrection. Confucianists were, for the most part, concerned with improving their life affairs with no concern of the true destination of the spirit after it leaves the body of the deceased. One of the disciples once asked Confucius about death, Confucius answered concisely: "We haven't yet finished studying life to delve into the question of death."

I must respectfully disagree. Confucius taught us not to dwell upon such topics for they are not important. What he did not want to see was what Li Shangyin described in his poem Jia Sheng: ä¸é-®è<ç"Yé-®é¬¼ç¥z (not asking about the lives of the people, but about ghosts and gods). We were never told that the stories of ghosts and gods were untrue. I think that's why we had ä¸o/ooæ*TMå^æµ, the merging of the 'three teachings' - that of the Buddha, of Confucius and of Laozi. While I believe that the Jade Emperor, Yama and dragons in seas are largely, if not completely, untrue, we don't need to go to Han Yu's extreme, much less the Song and Ming Neo-Confucians'. Have you heard of the ridiculous stories about the dogmatism that became of Neo-Confucianism? That came to mind when I read therealanimator's post: 'True but hey confucianism doesn't tell us who to hate or what we should do or wear. Some of the popular religions do.' In a way, I think that is much worse than pondering over xuanwus and qilins.